Leaderboard

If you insist in not understanding how the energy is generated, I cannot help you. However, do you realize: a) how much energy can be gained with from glucose using oxidative phosphorylation vs just the anaerobic pathway? b) how just conducting glycolysis is not sustainable and c) why therefore we need mitochondria? (as these all relate more closely to the question in title ?)

It depends a lot on what you know and how much you are in the habit of using what you know. People who have a solid grounding in math and science often apply their knowledge without ever consciously thinking "now I will do science." When I go to clean the bathroom and look at the available cleaning products my wife has accumulated I find myself considering the ingredients and their possible chemical interactions. 10 years ago a tall pine in our back yard died and looked like it would fall, but I was just packing for a vacation. So I quickly used the similar triangles method to estimate how tall it was and decided that if it did fall it would be just short enough not to touch our glass back door. Sure enough we got back from the trip and it was down, and the tip was three feet from the door. It's just a automatic sort of thought process for people who are accustomed to applying math and science.

If gravity is a distortion of space-time and all the other forces are framed by space-time, what separates the frame of reference? Please remember, I am but a simple layman...

Here is a pretty good article with regard to the US response (or lack thereof): https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/14/america-had-worlds-best-pandemic-response-plan-playbook-why-did-fail-coronavirus-covid-19-timeline/3587922001/ While not exhaustive, it does provide a few insights into responses elsewhere in the world.

You won't. It's impossible. Stop worrying yourself. Get help.

This appears to be the output of a random word generator.

How could this happen though? Women evolved under the constraint of having to successfully gestate children. It doesn't matter how smart you are, and it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you are a woman and you do not successfully gestate children you cannot pass on your genes. Combine that with men's ability to produce many offspring and you have two distinct selection processes for men and women; one which filters out women who have traits that jeopardize their likelihood of successfully gestating children and another that favors high variance strategies that allow men to impregnate many women. Keep in mind that the development of certain brain structures could be expensive calorically. It doesn't make sense for a woman to develop a brain that consumes 1500 calories a day since that would just drain her fat storage without much benefit, but it might make sense for a man who is a traveling merchant to do so since his work requires intense cognitive function (arithmetical ability, social and verbal wit, high working memory).

Probably. And probably comes from a very ancient obsession with fertility. Hunter-gatherer societies were thin on the ground. And they needed manpower as any other. In northern Spain there is a Solutrean cave in which lots of vulvas are depicted. And fertility statuettes all across Europe. I don't think the motivation for that was ancient pornography.

by the way, on the topic, there is an opinion that in ancient (pre-Indo-European) Europe there was matriarchy

Well, nomads are a bit of an exception. They are more pastoralists than agriculturalists. But they depend on agricultural societies to obtain the grain. Or move for pastures new, which leads to waging war again, when there are pastoralist agricultural societies claiming the land. Whether these and other similar societies used the bow and arrow is secondary. Agriculture brings conflict on account of claiming the land for yourself, and thereby war, which was the point. Yes. Agriculture is known to result in larger families. That's part of the equation. So we don't have 10,000 years of less war. It's just the opposite.

Is this your actual question? How does science explain the distribution of matter in space to form the elements as we know them? Or is condensed matter an important aspect of the question?

My interpretation of your question goes along the same lines as MigL's and Markus'. Just adding more raisins to the cake... The problem is in the scaling properties of the coupling constant (1 over mass squared). They make it blow up at large energies (short distances) in an uncontrollable way --> Non-renormalizability. Gravity cannot be 'tamed' with the techniques of QFT. In recent years it has been found that supersymmetric gravity can be quantum-mechanically tamed. But supersymmetry is proving very elusive. I sense a question within your question though: How come gravity is so special? What sets it apart from the other ones? Other interactions can be pictured as 'arrows' on the reference frame, signaling a distortion in it along internal directions; but gravity is a distortion of the reference frame itself. Maybe the re-phrasing of the question that MigL was asking for is here: Is that it?

I presume what you are actually referring to is a model of quantum gravity (a TOE is a different issue altogether). There is a standard framework to turn a given classical field theory into a quantum field theory - this prescription works just fine when used on the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. However, if we attempt to apply the methodology to gravity, the result is physically meaningless, because it is full of infinities (as MigL correctly stated, the result is not renormalizable). One part of the problem is that the other interactions happen in spacetime, so spacetime is kind of a necessary fixed background against which the physics play out; gravity is different in that regard, since here spacetime itself is where the dynamics happen. There are other reasons why this does not work, but most of them are quite technical.

In an age where information is abundant, fake news are rampant, and all sorts of conspiracy theories abound, having a modicum of scientific knowledge will help the average citizen to better judge what is genuine information and what is simply BS. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of the common people.

Sometimes it is also about simple things that one might be wondering about. Like how does your hand move? Why is it moving in that certain way? Why do I need to eat? What happens to the food? Of course many of those things are not precisely crucial, but science was always more about curiosity rather than about filling an urgent practical need (with exceptions, of course).

No. It really isn't. ...and no...that's not in any way supportive of Trump. I honestly think it's (usually) more against their home team/clan/tribe than their actual best interests.

By over a million viewers, no less. His team and Fox News were quick to act like crybabies because Savanah Guthrie was too mean to him... what with the way she followed up after he didn’t actually answer her questions. I liked how Biden stayed for more than an hour after his town hall has ended. The show was over. The networks cut away. He stayed and kept speaking with the people who were still in the audience and who had a question for him. That was a classy move during a time when classy leadership (or any leadership at all) is so persistently absent.

There is an article in the NYTimes talking about this topic, specifically the issues with free speech in a time where disinformation is rampant. The viewpoint is obviously US-centric, focusing on the first amendment. However, it also contrasts it is with European system. A pretty good read. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html

Not sure I know what you mean. Space-time and reference frames are both mathematical constructs; coordinate systems, if you will, where events happen. Maybe you could re-phrase the question ? And I'm sure I have no clue what Kartazion means. As to a TOE, I'm not even sure there can be such a thing; are you sure you don't mean Quantum Gravity ? In very simple terms, Quantum Gravity is a quantum field theory with expected Gravitons as field excitations. As such, it needs to be re-normalizable to get rid of the infinities that arise from all virtual graviton interactions. Unlike QED, QCD and QFD, gravity is self-interacting; the infinities resist re-normalization and do not go away.

I would not necessarily agree with this - I think as you get older you develop more wisdom, but not necessarily intelligence. Exactly how do you define 'smart'? I think it is context and experience, which is something that can only be developed with time (and circumstance). For example, a young medic fresh out of university may know everything there is to be found in medical textbooks - but standing on the bedside of someone with (let's say) unusual or non-standard symptoms, he may still not be able to diagnose them correctly, since he lacks the experience to put that knowledge into a wider context.

Indeed. How does one differentiate being triggered vs being baited? Could this be recast as conservatives are more likely to bait and provoke their opponents in arguments?

I am pretty sure that the definition of "triggered" could use some work. As a whole, mass and social media have heavily invested in an outrage industry as appeal to emotions has been shown to be an effective way to grab attention (which equals monetary value). As such a distinction into political leanings itself is meaningless as it is more about media consumption. Then one could ask whether there is a connection between political leaning and media use. I am not familiar with the whole range of literature, but I recall that a number of studies (I think one of the author was Guess) showed that especially older conservatives were more prone to share fake news (which mostly fall into the clickbait/outrage storylines). But it is a dynamic field of research and on some platforms folks found a higher impact of young users. Either way it appears that those on the extremes of either end are more likely to share and disseminate false information. However, it appears that numerical there are fewer liberal oriented folks (or Democrats, depending on how the study segmented the participants) falling for these fake news than their counterparts, which in part is probably due to the fact that within the liberal/democratic side there is a broader spread of opinion, whereas (at least in the USA) the conservative side is far more uniform (i.e. the group likely to fall for an disseminate false information is larger). Then of course one could take a look at the media landscape. Of course the Murdoch empire has for a long time manipulated opinion toward an alternative (conservative) view of the world and now with a number news outlets, podcasts and so on, a rather solid and influential outrage machine has been established, which does not only operate in the US. One example is how the US-centric QAnon conspiracy has spread to Europe. I am not really aware of something similarly powerful on the other side of the aisle.

Then you should have read the multiply given advice to start with simple examples, examples where we know exactly what the outcome of experiments is. No, I am tired of trying to understand your depictions and arguments. I think you have a choice: Trying to understand relativity Behaving like a crackpot who is not different than any other saying 'Einstien was wrong' (intentional typo) To 1 you should know: the experiments have been done, and they show relativity is correct (muons e.g...) relativity is the basis of understanding different phenomena, as magnetism; the colour of gold; mass-energy equivalence; Quantum Electro Dynamics; and also general relativity, because it is based on the requirement that also in gravity fields, Lorentz invariance must be locally valid; and how it is possible that we measure too many muons on the earth's surface (yes, muons again...) several technologies that would not work if relativity were wrong: e.g. GPS; or particles in accelerators (muons, e.g...), bringing them on speeds extremely close to the speed of light (the calculations must take relativity into account). Classical calculations would lead to errors, and we would only be able to accelerate particle to an energy of about a few Mega-electron Volt (a cyclotron that works perfectly according to classical electro magnetism fails when relativity becomes relevant); CERN's hadron collider gets at 6.5 Tera eV When you really understand the simple examples, then it could become clear how to apply relativity to more complex examples. I am not principally declining to talk about E, X and B ever again. But I must first get convinced that you understand the simple examples. So it is your choice. Understanding relativity, or arguing against it (which definitely is a lost case). Ah, the battle of the rep-points... sigh...

I hope that when you get on a plane, your pilot doesn't follow the same objective scientific approach to co-ordinate system choice, when landing

This is a bit like saying, "Can't you easily bait Jews by saying 'I support Adolf Hitler'."

Of course, the role of training and lifestyle cannot be denied, but it is simply stupid to reduce to them, I will not even discuss it, this is nonsense. Yes, I have no direct evidence, but it is logical that if male qualities are not required for survival, then they gradually disappear

because evolutionarily qualities are preserved only when they are claimed and rewarded Even in sports itself this trend very visible. Almost all sport disciplines are feminized, true man's disciplines with pure speed and explosive power, like sprint, olympic weightlifting, jumps, and so on, are not popular now

Addressing just the normal forces along the x-axis without a torque force, there is no net force according to Newton's laws. A net force due to the torque force is required to overcome the normal force along the x-axis (since there is no additionally a friction force to overcome). In this case we have a non zero net force that accelerates the nut. This is how Newton's laws work. Because there is a normal and a counter normal force along the x-axis, otherwise you break Newton's 3rd law between the screw and the nut. One has to introduce a torque force to overcome this balancing of forces on two bodies. If you may confirm this then we may contnue.

There is nothing to confuse, we just have the fact: more oxigen less power. That's all. 100 meters of run belongs about 10 second. It is possible to run this distance without breathing at all and sprinters never breath intensive when they runs.

If they found the actual time chemical make up or cosmetic diagnose for example. Theoretically understand how to manipulate it only back in time, as my theory going forward is far superior more dangerous if you fuck with the idea of time travel. Reason being is theoretically there is nothing scarred in the time continume forwardly, so yea... Say these crazy willing to die for the sake of science theoretically gain the cosmetic diagnosis and make up of time. They theoretically manipulate going back words in time. My theory is they would have to be stable and not move to even exist on a past time event, and theoretically they may not even be able to be present in the area they even start and end. Basically they would maybe able to get readings but that might be it, than theoretically they may have to reverse there manipulation out of the past in their designated line of travel. The data they would be able to gather may be as much as environmental reading and that's it, the data they would gather would not be able to actively allow there readings to see time be progressive but instead frozen. It can't be progressive theoretically because of the fact on their inability to actually be there physically. So is time travel even worth it if my theory is correct? And is the data they gain even enough or whatever? Also the reason in my opinion they have to reverse and clean up their travel is if they take the same path again it may not be an accurate reading like the first travel.